The upcoming Harry Potter Live Service game will be a superb litmus test | Opinion

19.03.2024 - 12:05 / gamesindustry.biz / Be A / Will

Sign up for the GI Daily here to get the biggest news straight to your inbox

The strong possibility that the next big Harry Potter game to come from Warner Bros will be a game as a service (GAAS) is an enticing prospect, but not for the reasons Warner Bros expects.

Sony, Warner Bros, Ubisoft, EA, and Square Enix are all doubling down on making their next games live service experiences and as video game analysts have said multiple times, they cannot all succeed. The latest Jimquisition, "Live Services Are Being Sent To Die," summed up the present state of affairs when it comes to GAAS quite nicely.

A key difference with this one is that it will be built around one of the biggest franchises on the planet with an inbuilt audience of children who are all aware of the franchise. No universe building is required. The target market is already there. Hogwarts Legacy sold over 22 million units and was one of the bestselling games of 2023. Which brings us as to why, after launching one of the most successful 'traditional' games in recent years and among the bestselling games of 2023, is Warner Bros embracing the GAAS model for future games so enthusiastically?

To answer my own question, it all comes down to recurring revenue, a constant stream of revenue from an engaged player base.

The issue is that at best the live service model can be described as 'tough.' The fact is growth in video game spending is slowing down to single figure percentage points, which means the pool to dip into new live service spending is beginning to dry up. What is left can be categorised as spending cannibalism. Simply put, a game that relies on recurring spending can only be successful upon the failure of other games that also rely on recurring spending. To increase the pool, you either need new players or increased spending from the existing player base. I would argue neither is happening.

The low retention numbers for the newly released GAAS Payday 3 are testament that the philosophy "if we build it, they will come" is no longer sufficient. Most of the Payday 3 gamers complained that the game played no different to Payday 2, a game where Payday gamers had already invested most of their money and time into. So why should they make the jump? For many jumping on a new live service game which has a low cumulative player base, from an established one which has a high cumulative player base, made no sense.

For new GAAS titles to achieve unrelinquished success, they need to offer something so new and original that gamers feel the sacrifice in lost time and investment from their older GAAS titles is worth it. This is a chicken and egg conundrum. Gamers will most likely jump onto a new live service game if it gains traction, but to get traction,